Frenette v. Frenette

Frenette v. Frenette

The motion was denied because the Small Claims Court will not order substituted service outside the jurisdiction under these circumstances where the defendant's identity and contact information are uncertain, counsel for the named defendant stated he did not possess the information, and ordering such service would exceed the scope and purpose of the Small Claims Court; claimants may pursue relief in the Supreme Court if the information is critical.

Citation
2012 NSSM 38
Parties
Claimant: Patricia Frenette; Claimant: David Biron; First Defendant: Peter Frenette; Second Defendant: Faith Doe
Court
Nova Scotia Small Claims Court
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
5 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Small Claims Court Matter / Pre Trial Motion for Production and Substituted Service Decided; Trial Scheduled
Outcome
Motion denied
Legal Topics
Substituted Service, Order for Production, Application of Civil Procedure Rules in Small Claims Court, Jurisdictional Limits
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Service of Process Disclosure/evidence Substituted Service Order for Production Application of Civil Procedure Rules in Small Claims Court Jurisdictional Limits

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patricia Frenette

Claimant

David Biron

Claimant

Peter Frenette

First Defendant

Faith Doe

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Small Claims Court Matter / Pre Trial Motion for Production and Substituted Service Decided; Trial Scheduled

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether counsel for a defendant must disclose contact information for another defendant
  2. 2 Whether the Small Claims Court should order substituted service outside the jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether substituted service by mail, courier, e-mail or social media is appropriate in this context

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was denied because the Small Claims Court will not order substituted service outside the jurisdiction under these circumstances where the defendant's identity and contact information are uncertain, counsel for the named defendant stated he did not possess the information, and ordering such service would exceed the scope and purpose of the Small Claims Court; claimants may pursue relief in the Supreme Court if the information is critical.

Court Disposition

Motion denied

Orders

  • Motion for Order for Production and for Substituted Service denied
  • Trial scheduled for July 19, 2012 at Small Claims Court at 5250 Spring Garden Road at 6 PM